There have been more developments regarding PG&E and its potential liability growing out of October’s fires here on the Northcoast. In a Dec. 20 press release, the utility giant announced that it is suspending dividend payments to shareholders out of concern for any finding of financial liability in Northern California’s devastating wildfires.

In the statement, PG&E board chairman Richard C. Kelly said utility officials decided temporarily halting the payments “is prudent with respect to cash conservation” for the state’s largest utility.

The utility paid $921 million in dividends last year and had paid out $754 million through the first nine months of this year, regulatory filings show.

According to the Wall Street Journal, PG&E’s stock plunged 9 percent after the announcement. Bloomberg reports the company now has lost one-third of its market value — a drop of $11 billion — since the October wildfires.

The state Insurance Department estimates that insurance claims from the Northcoast fires now stand at $9.4 billion and that total may reach $12 billion according to insurance industry estimates. Already the “Wine County” fires are the deadliest and costliest in California history. The fires killed 44 and destroyed thousands of homes.

A phalanx of lawsuits have been filed against PG&E, specifying that the utility’s poorly-maintained power poles and lines were to blame for the catastrophic October fires. Fire investigators are examining whether power lines or other electrical equipment sparked the fires. Some witnesses say they saw sparks flying from wind-whipped power lines, including an MCSO sergeant who was on routine patrol in Potter Valley the night the fires broke out

PG&E is dreading the January opening of the state legislature because a group of state lawmakers have announced that they will introduce bills to prevent electric utilities found culpable in wildfires from passing the costs for claims not covered by insurance as well as fines or penalties onto their customers.

Recently the “B-word”, as in bankruptcy, is being whispered in financial circles and on Wall Street. Investors’ stomachs started churning when a recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing by PG&E disclosed that its liability insurance coverage is only $800 million for any losses from the fires.

That’s why it’s going to be all out war in Sacramento on proposed legislation cutting off utilities from recouping uninsured costs from ratepayers.

PG&E and the state’s other two utility Goliaths— Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric — will probably set records for lobbying expenditures once the ratepayer-protection bills hit the floor of the legislature.

Advertisement

One other interesting development from the California Public Utilities Commission.

Keep in mind, that since 1996 when the state legislature, in a rare bipartisan vote, deregulated the electrical energy market, the PUC has been the pliable lap dog of the Big Three. Earlier this month, a consumer watchdog organization, Water Rate Advocates for Transparency, Equity and Sustainability (“WRATES”) issued a statement concerning a behind-the-scenes change made by the PUC.

The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) has failed to protect ratepayers from investor owned utilities for many years. But it still came as a shock when—without public or legislative participation—the CPUC quietly changed its mission statement.

The change is subtle but alarming. For decades, the regulatory agency’s mission statement read as follows: The CPUC serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy.

It now reads: The CPUC regulates services and utilities, protects consumers, safeguards the environment, and assures Californians’ access to safe and reliable utility infrastructure and services.

Gone from the mission statement are any references to reasonable rates. Rather, it appears the agency is distancing itself from consumers and further aligning itself with price-gouging utility companies.

When we asked CPUC Executive Director Timothy Sullivan about the new language, he said it came as a result of public discussion...

Despite editing out the reference to reasonable rates from the CPUC mission statement, Sullivan assured us that the agency will protect the interest of consumers.

“One driver of the change was the fact that the previous mission statement failed to embrace the major programs we fund to provide low income, rural and handicapped Californians access to the state’s infrastructure,” he said. ...What Sullivan apparently fails to understand is that the CPUC does not, actually, fund these programs. Ratepayers do. Removing “reasonable rates” from the core mission statement does not help “embrace” these other major programs … the new verbiage signals that the CPUC considers ratepayers a lesser priority than its relationship with investor-owned utility companies.

Of course, the PUC explanation begs the question of why delete language protecting ratepayers if nothing has really changed. Why not leave it as is? I think you know the answer to that question.

Jim Shields is the Mendocino County Observer’s editor and publisher, and is also the long-time district manager of the Laytonville County Water District. Listen to his radio program “This and That” every Saturday at noon on KPFN 105.1 FM, also streamed live: http://www.kpfn.org.